Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.6.2-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard several Members, including the general rapporteur, refer to the RALs and present questions and proposals to the Commission, as well as examine the possibilities for simplification. I would like to draw your attention to a curious phenomenon: the implementation of the Structural Funds, which represent one of the most voluminous headings, is much greater in the poorest countries of the Union than in the wealthy countries, which is contradictory by anyone’s standards. Logically, it should be expected that the more developed countries should have better implementation and better administration, but this is not reflected in the data they present us with. Perhaps more specific questions should be asked of the Council. When considering this issue, we cannot be homogenous and assume that everybody is equal.
I am speaking on a personal basis, but also as permanent rapporteur for the financial perspectives. I would therefore like to focus on two points. Firstly, I would like to ask the Council – which, although it is absent, I hope will read the Minutes – whether it intends to comply with what was agreed last year in relation to the contribution to the programme of restructuring the fleet which traditionally fished in Moroccan waters, and which we agreed to restructure as a result of the lack of an agreement with that country.
The Union’s budgetary authority, that is to say, the Council and this Parliament, agreed in December 2001 to include, and I would stress, ‘in the 2003 budget at the latest’, the EUR 27 million still required to finish the programme. However, in the draft budget, the Council has eliminated a budgetary heading that the Commission had included to this end and I would therefore ask what this means. Does it mean that the Council does not intend to respect its commitments or does it intend to concoct an excuse? And do not dismiss me as lacking trust, since what I have is experience. I have being fighting this fight for many years.
We in the Committee on Budgets propose to you two possibilities which, furthermore, may be complementary. On the one hand, to carry out a transfer of appropriations in November which are not going to be used in Category 2. Up until 18 October, EUR 105 million remained uncommitted. The Commission now tells us that it could only use 9 million. I would ask it to make an effort with this 105 million, and then we will see what it can achieve. Otherwise, we should really mobilise the flexibility instrument laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement for the next financial year. This is not very orthodox, it is true, but it could be accepted, since there is an exception laid down in the article of the Agreement. Furthermore, I hope that the Council, as it sometimes does, will fulfil its promise and that we can come to an agreement before December.
The second issue is the cut in traditional policies on third countries. Ladies and gentlemen, in heading 4 they are constantly asking us to increase our aid to new countries, and this is done to the detriment of old ones. This also implies a consideration by the Council of the total amount for this heading."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples